…and especially for any reformist movement that hopes to make things actually better as opposed to “slightly different in a way with good marketing.” But now I’m putting words in his mouth.
[QUOTE=Bill Curry]
It is progressives, or rather progressivism, that suffers most from how the game is played. A poll identifies an existing consensus. Progressive must build a new one. Media cuts “message” to the bone. New ideas require longer formed analysis and exposition. Moneyed interests pay to maintain the old order, not disrupt it, and support only such innovation as enables them to do so. Reform, the engine of the most vital innovations, is all about disruption. When Democrats put their faith in polls, media and high-dollar fundraising, they render real debate and real progress nearly impossible and help turn all of politics into mere entertainment, a cheap burlesque just waiting for a Donald Trump to steal its spotlight.
There is no progress without debate. This presidential race shows how campaigns displace rather than foster debate. As sea levels rise, aquifers shrink and wildfires rage, Republicans in one presidential forum and two debates entertained but a single question on climate change; of five hours, a single minute spent on a call for “energy independence.” In his first term, Obama soft peddled the issue because polls showed the country divided on it. He’s better lately, but if the scientists Democrats love to cite are even close to being right, it isn’t nearly enough.
[/QUOTE]
Seems more like a gripe about democracy (or “democracy,” if you prefer the managed democracy frame). Oh these dumb sheeple, why don’t they care about what I care about? How can they be so short sighted? That sorta thing.
Probably the biggest problem with free marketers, marketplace of ideas, wisdom of crowds type thinking is the idea that what people want is morally or practically good, so anything that results from our collective desire is legitimate. It’s difficult to upend that frame without seeming like an elitist or a fascist. If we want to be a bunch of fat idiots polluting the Earth, well, who the hell are you to tell us we’re doing it wrong? The market has spoken.
In context, his point is that reform movements have to change public opinion away from the directives of moneyed interests. So they should not defer to polls (and thus to existing public opinion) or to donors (and thus to corruption). This is a fair point.
But it does require a more “scientific” view of statecraft and a less “marketplace” view.
A large part of the problem is that too much of the left is afraid of populism and demagougery, associating it with the Tea Party or Donald Trump. Ironically the latter has done what the Democratic Party failed to do for decades-convince a significant portion of the Republican electorate that the party does not work for their socioeconomic interests. The question is if the Democratic Party can take advantage of this divide to make sure this is not a brief phenomenon but a step in shifting this portion of the electorate to its side.
No, marshmallow is right. Look at that complaint about climate change and how it isn’t being talked about. What it boils down to is “you guys, climate change is a really important issue and you should be talking about it instead of talking about immigration and ISIS and all the other mundane and pointless things you decided to talk about at that debate. You should be talking about climate change because I want you to.”
Or suppose that the candidates had talked about it incessantly during the debate. What would they have said? Not that climate change was a huge problem; rather that the whole issue was a hoax, overblown, etc. I cant imagine that the author of the piece would have been any happier with that.
Of course there are times when leaders should lead without regard to polling. But to say that paying attention to what the population thinks is a bad idea…that’s pretty paternalistic.